Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
Its where they've chosen to live. If they want to move, they should move.
And again, its not just the speed of traffic, its the volume of traffic. If hundreds of vehicles an hour go down your road then its not safe for kids to play on that road. If single digit vehicles a day go down your road, then it is.
Here's the thing though. And it may be a suburban London thing, so I'm not blaming you for not knowing.
There are lots of roads that were never intended as through routes, but were built, decades ago, open at both ends. We can tell what the intentions were by the widths of roads, how far houses were set back, that sort of thing.
Until fairly recently, they weren't used as through routes, because few people (apart from cabbies with their Knowledge and mega brains) knew about them. People stuck to main roads.
A lot of people put it down to the rise of satnavs with live traffic data. They notice these empty roads that are open at both ends, and navigate drivers down these roads that were historically residential. It happens in one road very near mine, and used to happen in another until filters were added. (Mine is parallel, but inconvenient enough that it rarely gets used like that.)
If a place where you have chosen to live then changes around you, should you have to move?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
Cul de sacs ?
Culs de sac.
Housing estates built in the 1920s and 1930s are full of culs de sac and unnecessary tight traffic islands to calm traffic. Nothing new about LTNs whatsoever.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
Look at it sensibly on a case-by-case basis. I can't do that from just street view images, but Councils etc ought to be able to do so.
If its not being used for through traffic, then 20 is plenty.
If it is, then 30.
Is that rocket science?
The point is there's no need for it to be one size fits all.
Quite. Default 20mph, and I nominate you as National 30mph Commissioner.
You can explain to each community why their kids are less important than drivers shaving a couple of minutes off their 2 mile commute.
Interesting isn't it. A solution in search of a problem. The kite is flown and it has become now (to the gullible idiots) yes this is exactly what we want let's reduce all the speed limits better safe than sorry will no one think of the children let's lock ourselves down while we're at it zero road deaths then why not 15mph you child murderer.
And surprisingly critical minds of PB jump in two feet first.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
On the main road off of which I live, the speed limit was reduced a few months ago from 30 kmh to 20 kmh. I haven't seen an accident since.
Whereas the side roads, which can't really be used as through roads because of the one way system, are 30 kmh. So in this case the residential side roads have a higher speed limit than the main through road.
Speed limits are arbitrary. Why is the urban speed limit 30mph? Because it has been assessed as a safe speed for modern cars in today's built environment? Or because we have inherited it from long long ago?
Speed needs to be tret the same as drink driving or seat belts. You might not like the rule, but you need to obey for the good of everyone.
I hope that BR is talking about roads which have a faintly ridiculous 30mph limit on them. If so we would probably agree. But residential streets? Where the only traffic is people going to and from houses?
In that kind of environment a speed limit is irrelevant. Nobody will enforce it. Ever. No speeding tickets will be handed out. So it is about awareness and it is about driver standards.
This (https://goo.gl/maps/7injhivDaTs3SDag8) is a 30mph limit. You'd have to be an absolute lunatic to try and do 30mph here. And a few taxis and delivery drivers tried it. You can complain but the bosses ask if they were speeding. Despite 30mph being crazy.
That is why we need 20mph limits in residential areas. Not to enforce them legally. To change behaviours.
It was the standard of the 1950s, as I recall, and how much longer before I have no idea. But standards change. Drink driving standards have changed - both in law and in public attitudes. Seat belts - I recall the howling when they were proposed, all sorts of shite excuses. And so on.
Replying to both, a 20mph limit on its own will not change behaviours, as shown by the Belfast study, because drivers who intimidate, injure are kill exist in their (our) detached bubble.
The dangerous driver is selfish and does not care, until they are giving their testimony in Court when it suddenly becomes a careless lapse or a moment of madness, in order to turn Dangerous Driving into Careless Driving to avoid jail.
One thing that allows this plea bargain is that Dangerous Driving requires proof of mens rea, whilst Careless Driving can be reckless. That needs to apply to both.
The careless or distracted driver, which is all of us at differing frequencies, is unaware or distracted and cannot believe what just happened.
The things that make a difference to the distracted are the design of the road environment, and strong enforcement, and perhaps continuing education and a Dr's medical certificate needed to prevent the visually or medically impaired lying to the DVLA to keep their license.
Speed limits are interesting - they started out as limits for road going steam engines in 1861. 30mph default came in in 1935, and it is about time it was revisited.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
What an absurd post. Do you also post as Leon?
The aim of lowering the speed everywhere in Wales is presumably to lower traffic fatalities and injuries. People are saying it is disproportionate. I am just trying to work out where *you* think the line should be drawn on reducing traffic fatalities. In Wales = yes; on motorways = no.
Is all.
Thank you for your response Leon.
As someone else pointed out, pedestrians and cyclists seldon use motorways. I am getting used to twenty is plenty and my driving behaviour has changed. I can't say I am an enthusiast but I understand the rationale.
The Welsh Conservatives, who were supportive are now fully opposed.
Given the huge spike in pedestrian casualties from SUVs in the US, I think a more pressing issue is legislating or taxing them out of existence before the same occurs here.
Or perhaps a different type of driving licence for them?.
The mega land battlecruisers in the US don’t sell here. A few crazy people buy a Hummer, but it’s not significant.
This is not looking like it is going to happen at all.
Nationalise it! We used to do things like that. Rolls-Royce only exists because we nationalised it in the 1970's. Why are we so wedded to the policies of the neoliberal era when they plainly don't work any more???
Comments
misguidedly got onto points of theology, so let's check out the new one.
There are lots of roads that were never intended as through routes, but were built, decades ago, open at both ends. We can tell what the intentions were by the widths of roads, how far houses were set back, that sort of thing.
Until fairly recently, they weren't used as through routes, because few people (apart from cabbies with their Knowledge and mega brains) knew about them. People stuck to main roads.
A lot of people put it down to the rise of satnavs with live traffic data. They notice these empty roads that are open at both ends, and navigate drivers down these roads that were historically residential. It happens in one road very near mine, and used to happen in another until filters were added. (Mine is parallel, but inconvenient enough that it rarely gets used like that.)
If a place where you have chosen to live then changes around you, should you have to move?
The only issue anyone objects to is converting existing through roads to LTNs without building an alternative through road.
Either find the space to build a by-pass to take the existing through traffic, or don't do it.
(to the gullible idiots)yes this is exactly what we want let's reduce all the speed limits better safe than sorry will no one think of the children let's lock ourselves down while we're at it zero road deaths then why not 15mph you child murderer.And surprisingly critical minds of PB jump in two feet first.
The dangerous driver is selfish and does not care, until they are giving their testimony in Court when it suddenly becomes a careless lapse or a moment of madness, in order to turn Dangerous Driving into Careless Driving to avoid jail.
One thing that allows this plea bargain is that Dangerous Driving requires proof of mens rea, whilst Careless Driving can be reckless. That needs to apply to both.
The careless or distracted driver, which is all of us at differing frequencies, is unaware or distracted and cannot believe what just happened.
The things that make a difference to the distracted are the design of the road environment, and strong enforcement, and perhaps continuing education and a Dr's medical certificate needed to prevent the visually or medically impaired lying to the DVLA to keep their license.
Speed limits are interesting - they started out as limits for road going steam engines in 1861. 30mph default came in in 1935, and it is about time it was revisited.
As someone else pointed out, pedestrians and cyclists seldon use motorways. I am getting used to twenty is plenty and my driving behaviour has changed. I can't say I am an enthusiast but I understand the rationale.
The Welsh Conservatives, who were supportive are now fully opposed.
The messaging in Wales has been very poor.